Topic: I knew it! Castlevania: Lords of Shadow!(SPOILERS HERE, PLZ USE THE SPOILER TAG)

[SomaCruz90]

^You honestly believe Jim Sterling is somehow out to troll video games? LOL

Especially since he's been previewing and looking at the game since E3 2009, and he had positive impressions of it at E3 2010

http://www.destructoid.com/e3-10-hands-on-with-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-176650.phtml

And there's nothing wrong with feeling Gone with the Wind is slow and boring, but quite frankly it IS. Dear God, I never wanna sit through that tripe again.

[Heuss]

^You honestly believe Jim Sterling is somehow out to troll video games? LOL

worse, is a trickster  

Assassins Creed 2... 04/10 XD

Publicity through scandal.

[SomaCruz90]

So he really didn't like a hyped video game. Oh noes.

[Heuss]

- Are a TROLL (Prime example: Jim Sterling): They know this game is good, they kinda like it (I bet they do) or haven't play it, just want to bash it, nitpick little (sometimes fake) minor gripes so dramatically they seem to be paid for trashing it (Oh wait, Jim Sterling has been paid for Enslaved Ads on his website...). Their main objective is to make people restraint of buying this game, They know it DOESN'T deserve to fail, but they would love seeing it doing so and will try their best to get that objective done.

Bingo.

[Munchy]

I love how people see negative reviews as some kind of conspiracy or personal attack.

Isn't it possible that they, you know... just don't like the game? It happens. Doesn't mean they're trying to sabotage a game.

[SomaCruz90]

I love how people see negative reviews as some kind of conspiracy or personal attack.

Isn't it possible that they, you know... just don't like the game? It happens. Doesn't mean they're trying to sabotage a game.

No, it obviously means they are purposely trying to attract attention and hits by publishing negative reviews. And the positive reviews(like the 9/10 for Enslaved) were obviously paid off from advertisements.

Obviously.

[Heuss]

New Reviews

http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/3647/Castlevania-Lords-of-Shadow-Review.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8061133/Castlevania-Lords-of-Shadow-video-game-review.html

http://www.ultimateps3.fr/news-ps3-5986-test-castlevania-lords-of-shadow.html

http://www.norsegamer.com/reviews/castlevania-lords-of-shadow-review

http://playeraffinity.com/ps3-reviews/cv-los.html

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/fc/castlevania-lords-of-shadow-af56fc.html

[Valtiel]

I get what you're saying (my favorite game, and what I think is the "best" game, are two different games), but I'm just not evaluating it the same way as you are. I don't know what else to really tell you, other than I disagree with the notion that Lords Of Shadow is somehow "objectively good," and that he should give it a positive review because of that, and not base it more around his own opinion & experience.
Regarding FF13... I'm tired right now, and I don't even know where to begin with this, God... I could not disagree more that it has a good narrative (log books telling you how the characters feel, rather than showing it, is not good story telling), that the battle system is well thought out (consists mostly of Auto-Battle & Paradigm Shift), or that there is a lot of content (complete opposite. It has the nick-name "The Tube," after all. Only one sidequest repeated a million times, as well). Final Fantasy 13 shouldn't get special treatment for having a high production value - if it's designed as one long winding dungeon line with no break, and a story told through Wiki entries, that's bad game design.

He shouldn't give it a positive review; he should criticize the game for the reasons he feels right, and then give it an appropriate score. Sterling criticizes the game on made up stuff, points out his own obtuseness or inability to understand the combat system as a flaw of the game ("I had an hard time with easy puzzles so they are bad!" isn't good criticism, to make a parallel).

In the end, opinions are subjective but they still are anchored to elements of objectiveness. LoS isn't necessarily a GOOD game, but it's in now way an "insufficient" game. A game's objective value is X, and personal opinion may lead someone to rate it X+1 or X-2. If you're reviewing the game X-5 on a 10 point scale your review stops being about the game and becomes about yourself, your preferences and your own preconceived notions. I don't give a damn about what Sterling likes; I want a review of the game. That's why Sterling's reviews are worthless. They tell you a lot about him and his preferences, and almost nothing about the game. I can see someone being incredibly harsh with LoS and rating it a 7 while making sense; I can see someone loving it and rating it 10 and still making sense. Giving it a 5 or 4 means ranting about your personal preferences, and once again, who the hell cares.


I more or less agree with everything you said on FFXIII, except for combat - I don't really like its combat system (but hey, I want pure turn based RPGs back, so I'm a dinosaur facing extinction) but that doesn't change the fact that it's probably one of the best in FF history. This is a clear example of what I was saying - I don't like FFXIII's combat, I'd prefer it to be different, but that aspect alone, compared to what most RPGs offer, is worth a solid 10. The combat is amazing, it's balanced, it achieves what it wants to do, it offers options and tweaks and rewards complex strategies in a way that FF didn't really manage to since VII. I dislike it but it's damn good. Again, I agree on the other aspects, but in no way they warrant a 4. There's an element of "lazyness" in FFXIII (too much enfasis on the datalog, the town fiasco etc) that should be punished in scores, but a 7.5 it's already an incredibly punishing score for such a game. A 4 is nonsense. Expecially because if you're willing to go so far to say that FFXIII's flaws warrant a 4, you can't then overlook the flaws of, say, Tales of Vesperia and rate it a 9 because it does things your way. You'll have to be somewhat objective and weight its flaws with the same harshness you used for FF and in the end you won't rate any RPG above 6. That's the notion that eludes Sterling, or well, it doesn't because he's actively pursuing sensationalism.

[RegalX7]

I don't give a damn about what Sterling likes; I want a review of the game.

I can read a Wiki article if I want to know totally objective info on the mechanics, story, etc. I want to hear the reviewer's opinion.

I can see someone being incredibly harsh with LoS and rating it a 7 while making sense; I can see someone loving it and rating it 10 and still making sense. Giving it a 5 or 4 means ranting about your personal preferences, and once again, who the hell cares.

Haven't you thought that... Maybe it's just your opinion that Lords Of Shadow can't possibly be worthy of a bad score?

the fact that it's probably one of the best in FF history.

But that's not a fact, it's an opinion! This is getting frustrating, come on...

[Valtiel]

1) I can read a Wiki article if I want to know totally objective info on the mechanics, story, etc. I want to hear the reviewer's opinion.

Haven't you thought that... Maybe it's just your opinion that Lords Of Shadow can't possibly be worthy of a bad score?

But that's not a fact, it's an opinion! This is getting frustrating, come on...

1) But that's not my point; even in a review, you'll want to hear the guy talking about the actual game, not his misconceptions about the game. If the reviewer is raging over how you need to finish a level to keep an upgrade (which is absolutely false) or discussing how unblockable attacks are impossible to tell out (either false or the sign of lack of gaming skills), or if he's building a critique based on an analysis of the combat system that highlight the fact that he didn't understand how certain elements worked, then you'll have to dismiss his opinion because it's formed on factoids and not facts. Simple as. I'm not asking a professional reviewer to give me an opinion I agree with, I'm asking him to at least stick to the facts, and then give his opinion. Sterling gave us 3 lines of incorrect informations about the game and then a page of him musing on mostly false problems.
If I wanted, I could write you a review of LoS that rips it apart; it wouldn't reflect my opinion, but it would make perfect sense. Sterling's article doesn't do that.

2) No, that's not the case. First, I'm not stating LoS can't be awarded a bad score; it's plenty possible not to like it. However, I'm simply stating that a guy who rates Dinasty Warrior a 9 can't rate LoS a 5. Try to understand my point: not everything is subjective. The right to have an opinion doesn't protect people from having stupid opinions. If I came here and said that Uncharted 2 has bad graphics or FFVI is a game that lacks content or that the music in Vagrant Story is horrible I would be expressing my opinion, and such opinion would be worthless.
Don't fall into the trap of relativism. SOME things in life are simply true.
LoS' combat system is GOOD. By comparison with similar games, it's actually outstanding. You're free to DISLIKE it, but that doesn't mean you can say it's BAD. Here's the difference. Your right to have an opinion ends at saying you dislike it. If you want to say something is BAD, you need to give an argument. You need to *prove* it. Does Sterling do that? Of course not, he muses about the fact that he sucks at it.

And this goes for all other aspects. Graphics, content, music etc. People gave excellent arguments for saying it's good stuff.
You think LoS is a bad game? Then write an article where you put the good and bad aspect face to face, you explain why something is bad and why something is good, and you draw some logic conclusion. That's what a review should be. Because if I want to hear someone going "This game's graphics suck because I say so and GoW's combat is better than Bayonetta because it's my opinion DURRRRRRRRR", then I have GameFaqs. I'm simply saying I'm expecting a game reviewer that is payed for what he does to write something that has quality. Is it so silly?

Consider it from another perspective. The people this guy is trashing worked for 3 years to make the game; doesn't mean the game is gonna be automatically good, but still, when reviewing it, I'll have some consideration of that in forming my opinion. If the game is bad, however, I'm supposed to look past that and acknowledge that no matter what their effort was, the result was shoddy. And it's right.
However, when Sterling puts up a sorry excuse for a review, citing incorrect facts, making a clown of himself by showing he didn't understand the game's mechanics and so on, but he should get a free pass because it's just his opinion? Sorry, but no. A review is a "product" too, and I'm reviewing it, and Sterling's review is crap. And not because of the score.

3) Very quickly on this, once again you're prey of the relativistic nonsense of the Internet generation. Again, an opinion can span the full range of the "like-dislike" spectrum, but to say something is good or bad, you need to argument it. For most things, the fact that it's "good" or "bad" is simply that - a fact. The fact it's plenty possible to dislike good things and like bad ones is the realm of opinions, and once again it's very fine; but Kubrick is a better director than Micheal Bay is, and that's a fact, and the story ends there. If you prefer Bay, you're free to do so, it's your opinion, but Bay remains a bad director. And Kubrick remains a good one, even if you hate him.
FFXIII's combat system is good. It's a fact. I can prove it to you. After that, you're free to dislike it (I hate the FFXIII combat system, and everything it stands for, but that doesn't change the fact that it's good). If you think it's a bad combat system, prove it.


Let go of relativism. There IS such a thing as reality, and it's not shaped by opinions. Good/bad =/= like/dislike.

[thernz]

what constitutes good and bad is usually culturally relative too. oh no, there's no escape.

[SomaCruz90]

What makes LoS combat undeniably "good"?

What makes anything about video games undeniably "good"?

[Oralox]

This?
http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/File:Black_Knight.jpg

Just why wasn't he in the game?

Oh mai! It looks beautiful!

[Kale]

Uh, he was in the game... just different from that concept art.

[Valtiel]

What makes LoS combat undeniably "good"?

What makes anything about video games undeniably "good"?

The fact that it is. Or rather, that I can give you an argument for it being good and it's sound and makes sense. Is it responsive? It's complex? It's balanced? It remains fresh through the game? All these factors don't depend on opinion. You're still free to dislike the game, but it's good.

Example: Super Street Fighter IV has a nigh perfect combat system. Period. Your degree of freedom in criticizing it stops at "I don't like it".

Some things in life just are that way. Ferraris are fast. Elephants are big. Street Fighter is good. If your opinion is that Street Fighter's combat system doesn't work well, your opinion is wrong.


The alternative is a universe where we're supposed to see a dude come and say "SotN is a terrible game, and doesn't warrant more than a 2/10" and say "sure, it's your opinion, and it makes as much sense as everyone else".
Opinions are like games - they can be reviewed. You think LoS' combat isn't good? Persuade me, but don't expect me to accept anything because it's your opinion. It still has to make sense.